FOG R result at Britcon 2010

[david53]

Heres the result for Britcon just in case people want to know.

1. Alasdair Harley Later 30 YW German Protestant
2. Jim Gibson Later 30 years War German Catholic
3. Dave Redhead Later 30 YW German Protestant

Seems like the German Armies have something but they were all quite different in there own ways.

Sorry for the rest of the players I don't have the scores.

[timmy1]

I can confidently state that in 10th place came Tim Myall - 30 YW Swedes. I had 6 great games despite losing every single one (4 defeats and 2 losing draws for a FoGR competition career record of played 10, lost 7, and 3 losing draws). I would like to thank Alasdair (he did not mention that he was hors de combat even though it might have excused the 2 points I took off him), Dave R (a true gent), Mick H (an absolutely cracking game), Dave P (a real pleasure to have as an opponent at last), Dave A (I was glad our game was the Sunday morning game - any other time and he would have ripped me apart - even so he pulled a very good stunt with the fake Hussars), and Dave M (the smile on his face when he fired MY medium artillery in enfilade at my BG I will not forget in a very long time).

[sphallen]

Are ECW armies competitive so far? I haven't seen the rules or the lists, but I'd like to build ECW for both FOG:R and other systems.

Steve

[david53]

Are ECW armies competitive so far? I haven't seen the rules or the lists, but I'd like to build ECW for both FOG:R and other systems.

Steve

Very all depending on which armies you use of course. With my little experience of FOG R you can't sit around it pays to have a plan more so than FOG AM as the artillery will force you to do something and not sit in the corner. This is a rule set that makes you IMO set up correctly and use the armies as they would have been used.

[timmy1]

Steve, at Roll Call 2010 I played against ECW Royalist twice and got crushed both times. At Britcon an ECW Royalist was in 1st or second going into the final round (I did not get to play it despite my army being designed specifically to counter it). Until we see the published lists and final version of the rules we can't be sure. I for one will be doing ECW Parliament and New Model in 15mm.

[rbodleyscott]

Here are the final Britcon scores and armies: (Dave was right about the prizes awarded - I skipped off before prize-giving to catch a train, and, by the rules of Britcon, therefore missed out).

Position Name Army Total
1 Alasdair Harley Later 30YW Protestant 115
2 Richard Bodley Scott ECW Royalist 88
3 Jim Gibson Later 30YW Catholic 82
4 David Redhead Later 30YW Protestant 72
5 Dave Morrison Early Ottoman 62
6 Paddy Bray Mughal 60
7 Mick Hood Later 30YW Catholic 58
8 David Parish Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth 56
9 Dave M Allen Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth 53
10 Timothy Myall Early 30YW Swedish 24

I used the 1643 Cornish option with mostly Average Cavaliers and all Superior foot (Musket* rather than Musket), but IMO more normal ECW armies will also certainly be viable in tournament. Like most lists they have certain advantages and disadvantages compared with other lists. Cavaliers are tough and good value for points, even if they do get a bit carried away in pursuit. (Mine pursued every BG they broke until they wiped it out or chased it off the table edge - and I mean wiped out: autobroken BGs are not removed if they are still being pursued, Cavaliers cannot even test to stop pursuing if still in contact, and still have to pursue when they have lost contact unless they pass a CMT to stop.)

There is also another unusual Royalist option for a rapid raiding force with just cavalry, commanded out musketeers and extra dragoons, which could be fun to use.

[nikgaukroger]

A question for the Britcon players - and indeed any other play testers.

Walking around Britcon looking at the tables I got the impression that with 800 points a large part of the table was generally unused and that a 5' wide table would suffice, or, and I always like this option, more toys need to be in play (900 points?).

[gibby]

Nik,

Like you I always prefer more toys, however I think this depends on the phase of the battle you are looking at.

At the start of the game space is needed to deploy and move in divisions, after a few turns it gets harder to move as divisions as regiments engage the enemy.

Also, if someone has set up a good field of fire with his artillerry, there may be a large empty area so as not to give it a target.

If its not too late too change, maybe Roll call could accomadate 900 points too give it a try.

cheers
Jim

[david53]

A question for the Britcon players - and indeed any other play testers.

Walking around Britcon looking at the tables I got the impression that with 800 points a large part of the table was generally unused and that a 5' wide table would suffice, or, and I always like this option, more toys need to be in play (900 points?).

Different idea here, I think you should leave it at 800 points on a 6 foot table.

1. Sweeping Cavalry movement will be resticted if you cut the table width and that to me makes the rule set what it is, TBH it will hurt foot armies more. TBH also your infantry Divisions would be forced closer together in the middle of the table restricting their Division movemet.

2. I would suggest keeping the points table size as they are this is a different game from AM. Check out after a year of open playing no need to rush to change IMO.

3. Take 900 points but add an extra foot to table size if you have to change it.

[rbodleyscott]

Leave it as it is - but you knew I would say that.

[nikgaukroger]

Nik,

Like you I always prefer more toys, however I think this depends on the phase of the battle you are looking at.

At the start of the game space is needed to deploy and move in divisions, after a few turns it gets harder to move as divisions as regiments engage the enemy.

Also, if someone has set up a good field of fire with his artillerry, there may be a large empty area so as not to give it a target.

If its not too late too change, maybe Roll call could accomadate 900 points too give it a try.

cheers
Jim

Looking at Tim's initial reports from Oxford the tables there looked a bit more "occupied", but with plenty of room for divisions and manoeuvre - were there any issues there?

[Maniakes]

Looking at Tim's initial reports from Oxford the tables there looked a bit more "occupied", but with plenty of room for divisions and manoeuvre - were there any issues there?

Part of that is the result of the limited number of possible beta lists - so some (possibly most) of the armies taken at Oxford were at the more expensive end in terms of points per BG (including Tim's and mine with Tercios and also the Swede). Which of course leaves more elbow room. Wait till you see the Scottish Covenanters put out before you make any guesses about how much spare room there might be on the table!

[david53]

Wait till you see the Scottish Covenanters put out before you make any guesses about how much spare room there might be on the table!

Or even Montrose's men.

[nikgaukroger]

Looking at Tim's initial reports from Oxford the tables there looked a bit more "occupied", but with plenty of room for divisions and manoeuvre - were there any issues there?

Part of that is the result of the limited number of possible beta lists - so some (possibly most) of the armies taken at Oxford were at the more expensive end in terms of points per BG (including Tim's and mine with Tercios and also the Swede). Which of course leaves more elbow room. Wait till you see the Scottish Covenanters put out before you make any guesses about how much spare room there might be on the table!

Ming Chinese look to be swarm-tastic if you're looking for that sort of thing

[david53]

Looking at Tim's initial reports from Oxford the tables there looked a bit more "occupied", but with plenty of room for divisions and manoeuvre - were there any issues there?

Part of that is the result of the limited number of possible beta lists - so some (possibly most) of the armies taken at Oxford were at the more expensive end in terms of points per BG (including Tim's and mine with Tercios and also the Swede). Which of course leaves more elbow room. Wait till you see the Scottish Covenanters put out before you make any guesses about how much spare room there might be on the table!

Ming Chinese look to be swarm-tastic if you're looking for that sort of thing

Talking swarms Mick had IIRC 17 BGs and Jim IIRC had the same, but look on the bright side 2 base units of commanded foot is'nt have as quick as medium drilled foot in AM. also if I had written it correctly what I ment to say was I don't think swarms will cause the problums some people have in FOG AM.

[hood_mick]

18 actually. But they explode just as fast from shooting no matter how many you have.

[david53]

18 actually. But they explode just as fast from shooting no matter how many you have.

Not if they are played as well as yours was.

[hood_mick]

I certainly recall plenty of death. In my last game and against the Turks.

[timmy1]

Nik

As someone who took an 11BG Swedish army, I would favour 900 points or a 5' table. Facing Polish and Ottoman on Steppe made the board feel very wide. I would never use the same list again (Jim, thanks for the advice). If I were going to be at RollCall I would love to try a 5' table but sadly real life gets in the way.

900 points will require LOADS of toys. I think that 830 points is the minimum that should be used on a 6' table. I have played an 800 point game on a 4' x 4' table but I will have to wait a while until I tell you more (for a very good reason).

And, as you would expect, if RBS favours no change, I favour any change - just because I can.

Regards
Tim

[rbodleyscott]

Table size

If some types of army want to spread out across the table and some types are better deployed tightly (not using the full table width), that is not a good reason to shrink the table.

All that happens if you do, is that you favour the armies that like the tighter deployment.

Since those type of armies did best in the tournament anyway, why on earth would you want to favour them more?

(Shrinking the table so that an Early 30YW Swedish army will cover it from side to side would be very silly indeed.)

Narrowing the table so that both sides have to use all of it also diminishes skill in making best use of prevailing terrain (and, as Jim says, artillery).

There is no problem with uncatchable skirmishers preventing game resolution in FOGR. Renaissance battles were not usually fought in tightly circumscribed locations - there should be unused space around the armies. I think you are trying to solve a "problem" that isn't a problem at all.

And, if you disagree with all these points, there is always the option of 28mm.

--------------------

Points size

What proportion of the games in the tournament were finished?

If it wasn't at least 50% then we aren't ready yet for 900 point singles games.